Skip to main content

About your Search

20121226
20130103
STATION
CSPAN 10
CSPAN2 2
WUSA (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
. he does not have the experience to manage a very large organization like the pentagon. and we've actually had-- i think leon pa98 has done a wonderful job. i supported his nomination. he did have a lot of experience prior to coming here. and if there's a place we need great management, it's the pentagon, and a great manager. >> o'donnell: senators coburn and durbin, good luck today. >> thank you. >> o'donnell: a busy day this sunday. >> we actually had breakfast together. >> o'donnell: i think the american people wish you luck, too, with your gang of eight. we'll be right back. for an idea. a grand idea called america. the idea that if you work hard, if you have a dream, if you work with your neighbors... you can do most anything. this led to other ideas like liberty and rock 'n' roll. to free markets, free enterprise, and free refills. it put a man on the moon and a phone in your pocket. our country's gone through a lot over the centuries and a half. but this idea isn't fragile. when times get tough, it rallies us as one. every day, more people believe in the american idea an
their budgets cut, depending whether it the pentagon or other agencies. the agencies can try to shield some programs for others. social security benefits are not going to be cut. the pay for pentagon officials is not going to be cut. if this drags on into march or april, they will have to do furloughs, is essentially giving people vacations. host: the headline from "the wall street journal." is that one way to do that? guest: that is a painful way to do that. when people do not have money to spend, the economy is not going to grow. if this goes on for a couple of days and the stock market falls dramatically, congress and the white house may be able to avoid some of the long-term consequences. if everybody digs end, more disasters things could take hold. host: the president, vice president, speaker of the house, democratic leader of the house, will be meeting today. from the reporting you have done, what will be happening? guest: they could sit down and cut a deal in five minutes. they know all the issues. they know where their parties are. they could sit down in five minutes, shaking hands,
be a massive hit on the pentagon budget and what that means for our national defense. big deal. >> absolutely. thanks. joining us for a closer look at the fiscal cliff negotiations, ron johnson, a member of the appropriations and budget committees in the senate. thank you for taking a break from a busy time to visit with us. >> thank you. >> i want to get a response from the comments to the president. he said that g.o.p. can't take yes for an answer. is there an offer that would have been acceptable to the house or the senate g.o.p.? >> not that i am aware. people throw the numbers around, like there is a deal, $1 revenue for $3 spending cuts, i have never seen those deals. senator harry reid should have made sure the senate passed a budget, sometime in the past 3 years and that would be reconciled with the house and you would have a framework, you know, a budget resolution that the committee -- the appropriations committee, the house ways & means committee, senate finance committee, they would have the instructions to work on the difficult problems npublic. have a public debate. we are down
. that became more and more until the publication of "the pentagon papers." that was a gradual growth come a difference, between the media the new york times" and the administration, and that continues until the state. there is an oscillation between the administration and "the times" depending on the administration. that difference opened up cordially there, and it continued to. the skepticism to the vietnam war, and watergate, which is mostly "washington post" storage, increased trade gradually we have what we have today, an adversarial right fox, adversarial left, msnbc, and cnn, which is trying to be "the new york times," when nobody wants to see a non- adversarial. "the times" is a two-section newspaper, a term that "the times" does not like any more. the editor -- when you use in it, they get a little bit squeamish. some of you i should probably it, one of my sources -- took a great deal of reading the, and interviews. "the times" is generous in giving me access, letting the interview them. mostly, i got this through approaching them and asking them, and one led to the other. approa
is a couple mission of the pentagon to it that was a andual i'll live to milan in administration. but it does not interest otters up continually there. this skepticism for the vietnam war and watergate which is mostly the washington post dory increased. the press became adversarial and maybe it will we have to have men ever serial left at have one cnn which is kind of trying to be the new york times and people are talking abut that people are not adversarial news. the stock above the neck down is it to section the newspaper. i notice the public editor who has probably talk to the look less people less times that i have have said, the day's paper is the granddaddy best friend of nuclear plant. the individual was get a little bit squeamish. some of you think i should say where are my sources. the book was a great deal of reading, i also was a very temperance and times of generous and giving me access. as one person or any view and expect to be. 1999-201. . all of the executive editress. by the time we were involved in this process a tentative before -- 1834 was a secondary investing. >> it does
that? and i want to say a word about sequestration. sequestration is about to kick in. the pentagon and our defense department is like a giant oil tanker. you got to turn it around in a very difficult and slow manner, because they have to make plans and they have to have contingencies -- procurement of weapons, have to do all the things that are necessary to make sure our men and women who are serving in the military are the best trained, best equipped and most professional in the world, which they are. but we're looking at sequestration here when the department of defense says it will decimate our adilt -- ability to defend this nation. shouldn't the president of the united states be concerned about that? but what is his own secretary of defense is saying and what his own chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, his selection, is saying. instead, we kind of joke around and tell people they're going to be here fear new year's eve. that's not the way to lead this nation. so i come to the floor and say to my colleagues, we need to get this done. we all know that we need to get this done
who are very upset with the cuts that would hit the pentagon. it may be difficult to rally republican votes of the cannot turn off the sequester. on the democratic side, the estate tax could be a problem. the republicans are insistent that the estate tax stay at current levels, which is exempting the state of $55 million at a relatively late 35% above that level. many democrats would like to see -- in january it is expected to come -- taxes are expected to go up dramatically. as small as $1 million would be taxed. most democrats want to see something in the metal. they are adamant that we cannot exempt states as large as $5 million. that could be another sticking point. >> do we expect anything going on today? if not, what is the earliest of the senators will come back in for session tomorrow? caller: i think the senate is due back in at 1:00. the house is due at 6:30. the house is the big question mark here. it is very difficult to imagine what could pass the house. as for today, that is an excellent question. the senate is not in here the house is not an. my understanding as we are
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
, so do have the debt ceiling fight coming up. when you say that it faces and, you expect the pentagon to say we would just hold everything? certainly years, serving months ahead of time. they have to plan on how many people to have in their workforce -- in the force, recruiting. you cannot turn on a dime, like a huge oil tanker. >> john, we will focus on folks that we did not know who are here. we will come right back. don't go away. take five minutes. >> this is just -- >> we saw senators mccain and 11 decide they will come back in a couple of minutes. as we wait, back to something that took place earlier this morning outside the capital. -- the capitol. >> i want to thank you for being here to call on house republicans not to drop the ball on the middle-class. also for the house to show up for work, right? the president is down at the white house, senator harkin and his colleagues are here. they are out on a paid vacation right now. boehner walked out of the allegations with the present and then he walked out of the house and tell all members to go home while we are four days away f
partnering with the pentagon to send 35 additional detachments of the marine security guards that's about 235 marines to the medium and high for outposts where they will serve as a visible deterrent to a hostile act. that is on top of the 150 detachments we already deployed. we are aligning resources in the 2013 budget request to address the physical form a devotees and reinforce the structures wherever needed to address the risk from fire. let me add we may need your help to ensure that we have the authority to streamline the usual process that produced faster results. we are seeking to hire more than 150 diplomatic security personnel and increased 5% to provide them with the equipment and training that they need. there is the arb recommended we will target them squarely at securing our - outposts. i want to second the praise for the professionals. i served in this department for only two years having come from the private sector. however, as i travel to places like iraq, afghanistan and pakistan i have seen firsthand how the dedicated men and women risk their lives. we all hold them with a
to washington, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollar rise, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why is that? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism was sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. well, paul volcker -- been named may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. whener's paper, which are i read a few years ago, i thought it was the most remarkable document ever to emerge from washington in the last few years. looking at the emerging eco
that i do not view this as the fall of the pentagon, but rather, an indication that the department of defense has insufficient assets to respond to attacks at this time -- of this type. let me comment on the administration's response to the attacks. this was so obviously a terrorist attack that i remain perplexed that the administration's officials gave such conflicting responses to questions from reporters about whether or not it was a terrorist attack. this was clearly not a peaceful protest that somehow got out of hand and evolved into a violent attack. instead, it clearly was a terrorist attack. and this, unfortunately, has been typical of what the committee has found over the last few years in our investigations of radical islamic extremism and the threat of the perversion of a peaceful religion practiced by the vast majority of muslims. the threat of the perversion of that etiology to attack our country remains a great threat. and yet, the administration repeatedly has refused to name the threat that we have faced. it was evident in the department of all land security -- home
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)